two or more people who interact and are interdependent (they are dependent on one another)

their goals and needs cause them to influence each other

Interdependence- rely on each other to reach shared goals

Group identity- individuals perceive themselves as belonging together

Group structure- expectations held by the group for how members in particular positions ought to behave (ex.: fraternities and sororities, teams, clubs)

1. information- we learn info from groups

• need for accuracy/informational social influence
• you have access to more info

similarity

group cohesiveness

social norms 

social roles

people are attracted to similar others and groups operate in ways that encourage similarity among members.

groups foster similarity.  once we have a group identity, the similarities continue to build upon themselves.

the qualities of a group that bind members together and promote liking between group members.

if a group is cohesive they are more united

problem: people put group cohesiveness ahead of everything else; problematic during decision making

groups have social norms regarding acceptable behavior.  the consequences of violating these norms is pressure to conform and ultimately rejection.

self esteem: we want to be accepted

shared expectations about how particular people are supposed to behave.

roles facilitate social interaction, but can cause people to lose their personal identities 

stanford prison study, 1971

Abu Ghraib 

social facilitation

zajonc, 1969

(cockroaches)

the tendency for people to do better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks when:

they are in the presence of others

their individual performance can be evaluated

the KEY  to social facilitation is IDENTIFIABILITY

presence of others

↓

dominant response

↓ ↓

improved performance impaired performance 

(simple well-learned (on difficult complex 

tasks dom. res. correct) tasks, dom. res. is 

wrong)

presence of others and phisiological arousal 

alertness

we dont know what our audience wsill do next.  having an audience makes us more alert.

ex. presenting a thesis

presence of others and phisiological arousal

evaluation apprehension

concern about being judged

simple tasks: can lead to greater effort. if people are evaluating you on something youre good at, you can show off.

presence of others and phisiological arousal

distraction conflict

our attention becomes split between the task at hand and the audience

simple tasks: not a problem, its easy

complex tasks: requires full attention/controlled thinking

social loafing 

Ringelmann, 1913

(rope pulling)

the tendency for people to do worse on simple tasks but better on complex tasks when:

theyre in the presence of others, and

their individual performance cannot be evaluated

(the group is being evaluated)

leads to relaxation 

worse on simple tasks- slack off, assuming someone else will make up for you.

better on complex tasks- less pressure, more relaxed 

mob mentality.  becoming anonymous loosens normal restraints on behavior 

increases impulsive and deviant acts

(ex: winning NCAA and building/jumping over fires...cant be singled out so you act more "free")

Lynchings (Mullen, 86)- the larger the mob the more violent the behavior

warriors (Watson,73)- masks, concealing identities

uniforms (Rehm, 87)- looking like everyone else makes behavior more aggressive

hurting others (Zimbardo, 1970)- name tag vs. no nametag

no accountability 

conformity to group norms: they can foster positive or negative behavior

any aspect of the group interaction that inhibits good problem solving

why?

may not listen to the expert- if the person with the most information may have low status or be unable to break from normative social influence (hard to go against the grain or call out a bad idea)

communication problems 

failure to share and focus on unique information

how to avoid process loss:

Assign each person different responsibilities.

ex: photohunt (one person takes hair differences, clothes differences...)

Take time to discuss unshared ideas.

ex: uses trasactive memory (knowledge held by individual group members...taking advantage of their wealth of info.

when group cohesive is more important than considering the facts (fitting in is put before making the best decision)

ex: Challenger

antecedents of groupthink 

(what leads to groupthink)

highly cohesive group

isolated from contrary opinions 

ruled by a direct leader (challenger explosion)

using poor decision-making procedures 

high stress situation

• an illusion of invulnerability: the group is important to you.  bc we hold group in high esteem, we think that whatever decision we make will be right
• belief in the moral correctness of the group: thinking the group is correct, "God is on your side"
• stereotyped views of the outgroup: stereotyping other groups away
• self-censorship: hard to go against the grain...go along with group
• direct pressure on dissenters to conform: normative social influence...pressure to conform on people who try to deviate
• illusion of unanimity: impression that everyone is on board with decision, but some people might be censoring themselves

• impartial leaders: bringing someone from outside the business that doesn't have a strong commitment to the group and bring outside opinions
• get outside info: get outside feedback to get an objective view
• divide into subgroups: bringing different viewpoints to the table...bring different perspectives 
• secret ballots: gives people the comfort to express the opinions that you have...attacking self-censorship

the tendency for groups to make more extreme decisions than teh initial (average) inclinations of its individual members

Why?

1. persuassive arguments (informational social influence)

2. social comparison (normative social influence)

individuals present their most persuasive arguments favoring their initial judgements.

→offering up most persuasive argument to change people's minds..."we have no tests tomorrow...its half price...cute boys" 

individuals will be confronted with arguments they had not previously considered

imagine you were considering the pros and cons of going to grad school, and you posed the idea to two groups:

YOUR FAMILY: who was initially slightly opposed to the idea

YOUR FELLOW STUDENTS: who were initially slightly favorable

what would happen to opinions after discussion within each group?

after discussion, "def dont go" or "def go".

all put out strongest arguments, so their opinions became more extreme.

behavior intended to injure another who is motivated to avoid it (this person does not want to be hurt)

two dimensions of aggression:

1. indirect vs. direct

2. emotional/hostile vs. instrumental

attempt to hurt another without obvious face to face conflict

ex: spreading a rumor that your ex-boyfriend has an STD

behavior intended to hurt someone "to his or her face"...verbal or physical

ex: a hockey player punches another player

hurting another to accomplish another (non-aggressive) goal

ex:a mother spanks a child to discourage him from repeating tantrum

• we have an instinct to be aggressive. (internal drive)
• aggression is cathartic.  if you express your aggression/get it out of your system, you will feel better
• Eros and Thanatos (instinct toward death/aggression): two instincts...life and death
• Hydraulic theory

no empirical support

catharsis does not reduce aggression- more often increases it.

biological theories

aggressive impulses may be hereditary

neural and chemical influences on aggression:

-amygdala- an area in the core of the brain that is associated with aggressive behaviors. -yet still dependent on situational factors 

-serotonin- a chemical in the brain that may inhibit aggressive impulses

-testosterone- hormone associated with aggression.  

-high testosterone assoc. with higher aggression and less helping behavior in both males and females.

-"cruder" fraternities have highest average testosterone level.

men's aggression is more likely to do physical harm, and thus gets more attention.  

men commit the vast majority of homicides

• gender diff. in types of aggression: men do tend to be more aggressive under normal circumstances.  however when provocation is involved, gender diff.s disappear
• gender diff. in types of aggression: men use more physical, direct forms of aggression.  girls and women use more indirect forms of aggression (example: spreading rumors etc.) but women are more likely to use physical aggression against her partner, eg slapping. 
• there is no clear gender diff in reporting feelings of anger.

alcohol and aggression

Bartholow and Heinz

(alcohol weapons and neutral images)

alcohol increases aggression compared to sober state for both men and women, hostile and non-hostile people.

alcohol impairs normal inhibitory processes.  rational thought is impaired...less likely to control ourselves, "the filter"

it changes how we process info.  focus more on immediate feelings and reactions; less likely to consider larger picture (ex: someone bumping into you and spilling drink..."what a jerk!" -not considering situation factors ie bar being very crowded)

 AUTOMATIC THINKING

alcohol consumption not needed for alohol-related aggression- mere presence of alcohol (or other aggression related stimuli) can prime us for aggression...schema is activated

heat correlated with:

pitchers throwing more balls at batters

more aggressive horn honking

increases in assaults 

increase murders

increases in urban riots 

when hot, youre frustrated and uncomfortable.  when ppl are in uncomf situations, theyre more likely to behave aggressively

aggressive behavior is learned thru:

direct rewards

observations of others 

Bandura

(BOBO Doll experiment)

media becoming larger presence in our lives

60-70% tv shows have violence

90% kids play video games: majority are violent

short term effects: increased hostile behavior, feelings, attitudes

long term effects: repeated exposure leads to chronic hostility, desensitization to real world violence

realistic violence

moral justification for violence

identification of observer with aggressor

arousal of observer

rewards/punishments of aggressor

punishment: kids who are frequently punished become more aggressive themselves.  fear of punishment can lead to counter aggression.

societal policies: if ppl have equal access to resources (food clothing shelter) there is reduction in aggression

1. notice the event
2. interpret as emergency (pluralistic ignorance- if others not helping it must not be a problem)
3. feel responsible (diffusion of responsibility)
4. know how to help
5. assess costs of helping

instrumental = susan pushes juanita down

direct/emotional = mom fight